Chamber and committees

I would be happy to hear from that individual about those issues. It would be useful to get that information.

I think that we do not have information on that because, perhaps surprisingly, the funding comes from the equalities portfolio. I think that the £5 million that was to be allocated in the first 100 days has been allocated. Obviously, justice has an interest in the issue, but the allocation was handled by equalities ministers.

It is very good that we have the scheme, which, for those who might not be aware, gives victims of crime and, in certain circumstances, their close relatives greater rights to information about the status of an offender. We have legislated to make more victims eligible. In 2014, we extended the criteria to include victims of those serving more than 18 months’ imprisonment instead of only victims of those with prison sentences of four years or more. In 2015, we extended the criteria further to allow certain information to be given to victims of offenders who are sentenced to less than 18 months in prison.

In relation to the numbers, we have agreed that we will bring together all the relevant partners to review the victim notification scheme and to determine whether further improvements can be made. That move—alongside the previous measures that were taken to introduce and expand the scheme, our commitment to establishing a victims commissioner and some of the other comments that I have made—shows that we very much have the interests of victims at heart. Of course, it is always for the victims and their relatives to decide whether they participate in the scheme.

Yes, although, as I said, the former Lord Advocate expressed concerns because of the interrelationship with his functions. However, if the code of conduct is sufficient—we have had an assurance about that from the UK Government, and it will come back to us in future—and if the final version reflects what is in the draft, it should not be an issue for us.

On what we are doing, the committee did an investigation into that in 2018. Since then, we have put another £117 million into community justice services each year, plus a further £550,000 to incentivise bail supervision services—bail obviously being the flip side of remand. We have also put in another £1.5 million for bail support for women each year.

I reiterate the important point that this is not just about legislation. I think—I imagine that the committee will know this better than I do—that there is also cultural adaptation, as well the legislation, that we have to consider.

That is exactly right. The other side to that is the people on the other side of the video camera—the families who can make contact online who would find it difficult otherwise, either because of the need to travel or because Covid is a barrier. It is not just about the prisoner. The response that you will sometimes get is that it is soft justice for a prisoner to give them a phone or to have these televisual conversations, but there is the other side of it as well. Going back to the point that was made previously about remand, it is about the effect on not just the individual who is on remand but their family, so your point is correct. You are right that that is, in part, a response to Covid, but we should look at these things.

Prison officers will tell you that there are benefits to that. There are also dangers around phones and other information technology equipment, with regard to maintaining the proper regime in prisons. Being aware of the dangers is important, but we should look at how we can do that. Thinking on the hoof, why should we not look at educational incentives being delivered in that way as well? That could be done more safely than might otherwise be the case and, I imagine, it would be possible to get more specialist educational opportunities for prisoners if they could do such things remotely. We should look at some of these innovations for the longer term.

What is important is that there was a decision for Parliament to take—it has taken it not once but twice—and Parliament is continually notified by the Government on the situation. That is the democratic check that we have. The decisions have tended to be on the basis of a consensus among the parties in the Parliament, at least up until now.

The only thing that we are still looking for is for that code of conduct to be finalised.

That is a very good question and there is a lot to it. First, on the question as to what elements have given cause for concern among the legal profession, what springs to mind is the concern of the Faculty of Advocates about the continuing use of remote juries. The faculty has been very supportive of the use of remote juries and has seen real benefits from it, but I acknowledge that there are some concerns in the faculty about that being carried too far into the future if it is not required given the Covid situation.

On the issue of what innovations will remain, remote juries are something that we will consider, and we will also consider the Lord Advocate’s views on that. The remote balloting of juries has been of great benefit. It has been necessary because of the Covid pandemic, but it might be useful in future, too. We might want to keep in mind the potential use of remote juries in exceptional cases—for example, in serious organised crime cases where there might be an issue of jury tampering.

Mr Greene is right to say that we cannot just expand everything to try to deal with the issue. The committee heard from the Lord President, who said exactly that: we cannot just increase the scale of the system and there are other things that need to be done. An example might be the pre-recording of evidence, which has been beneficial for many reasons and not just in relation to Covid. The ability for people who might be vulnerable for different reasons to give evidence in much more relaxed surroundings started very recently and I think that it will be a long-term innovation.

Beyond that, it is clear that we cannot say that what we have done in response to the pandemic with the £50 million that we have put into the system this year is sufficient. We understand that it is not the end of the story and more investment has to happen. Members will know that the publicly acknowledged times for getting trials back up to where they were before are 2024 for summary trials and 2025 for solemn cases. If there is anything that we can do to advance that, we will try to do it.

Apart from with some of the innovations that we have made, we are in no different a position from the other jurisdictions that have had to wrestle with the problems that the pandemic has created. Neil Rennick might have something to add on that.

You anticipated my response, convener. As Ms McNeill said, there are on-going legal proceedings. The more general point that was raised starts to get us back on to that, too, so those questions are best put to the Lord Advocate, because she has responsibility for the Crown Office and what it has done. I was not in my current role when those things occurred. I am afraid that those questions would best be put directly to the Lord Advocate to see whether she is able to answer them. I do not want to comment beyond that, for the reasons that I have given.